Credibility does not require incessantly bringing up injuries to doctor

Published on May 05, 2015 / ICBC Claims

Is it necessary to complain about your symptoms every time you see your doctor?

In the April 30, 2015, decision in Blackman v. Dha, Madam Justice Devlin considers and rejects an attack on the injured victim’s credibility for not repeatedly bringing up her symptoms when she saw her doctor. Justice Devlin accepted the Plaintiff’s testimony that she didn’t think it necessary to keep returning to her doctor when her symptoms were unchanging and she was following her doctor’s recommendations. She also accepted the pre-natal doctor’s explanation that the focus of pre-natal visits is the pregnancy and there would not have been time to deal with other issues:

[57] Accordingly, I disagree with Ms. Dha’s position that the medical treatment Ms. Blackman sought was inconsistent with someone who experienced mild, recurring pain, including neck pain and headaches. As noted in Roy and Edmondson, Ms. Blackman’s infrequent visits to Dr. Naiker do not lead me to doubt the veracity of her complaints, as Ms. Blackman testified she did not think it necessary to return to the doctor given that her symptoms remained the same and she was following the doctor’s recommendations. Similarly, the fact that the notes of Ms. Blackman’s pre-natal visits to Dr. Naiker do not include repeated references to the recurring pain does not advance the defendant’s position. Dr. Naiker explained that when she was examining Ms. Blackman during a pre-natal visit her focus was the pregnancy, and she would not have had time to deal with other issues. I acknowledge that there may be cases where one’s failure to seek medical attention will result in the court drawing an adverse inference about their credibility. This is not one of those cases.

Paul began practicing law in 1995 in a general litigation practice. Of the various areas of litigation, he became most drawn to and passionate about pursuing fair compensation for personal injury victims, which has gradually became his exclusive area of practice. Paul's practice is restricted to acting only for the injured victim, never for ICBC nor for other insurance companies.